> It was interesting when they banned Trump that they cited "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a notable incitement of violence.

Can anyone square this? It seems indefensible.

We could be looking at a classic case of groupthink [0]. I've read a lot of political speeches with half-truths to try and gain an advantage, but the Twitter statement stands out as something that might be their honest take. Someone, probably a couple of someones, with high intelligence and communication ability was in such a state that they interpreted the Tweet as inciting violence.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

A simpler explanation would be confirmation bias.

Regardless, I dont see any sense in it. I wonder if anywhere he can defend it.

I can. The idea is that he’s signaling that an attack on the inauguration won’t injure him, and so it’s mafia talk for “attack the inauguration”.

I don’t support this as a grounds. It’s so flexible that you can see or not see it at will, so, you can give a charitable read to someone you like or a threatening read to someone you don’t. It also relies on mind reading.

Nevertheless a lot of people can read it that way.

Trump attempted to use Twitter to overthrow the government and have the vice president of the United States executed by a mob.

Sources or it’s false. This claim is a pants on fire lie.

No police were killed on that day, contrary to initial reports - but one protester was.

Trump never specifically called for violence but remarked to show protest “peacefully at the capitol” on Twitter. For the lack of evidence, the Jan 6 committee has been running in circles begging for people to step forward.

I don’t have to like Trump or support him to know this claim is asinine.

There is a very lengthy blog posts about why Trump was removed on Twitter's website. I am surprised you pretend like his actions and Tweets around that time are no biggie and that you downplay the violence and actions that occurred on Jan 6 to make it seem like the protestors were the ones who were innocent and harmed, and just FYI the police officer that later died was specifically tied to the events on Jan 6 and several others were seriously injured.

In no way do I want to downplay the actions of the protesters. However, reading what Trump actually said and at the times he said it, it’s way too much a stretch for me to believe that is what he meant.

Also, I think any explainations from Twitter, considering who was running them, are one-sided and should not be taken on face value. That still is the case for who is running it now. I do not trust either for a remotely unbiased assessment.